<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (8) TMI 397 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397454</link>
    <description>Valuation and sale terms in liquidation must be assessed against the governing statutory and regulatory framework. A challenge to the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s jurisdiction failed because it had examined only compliance with liquidation regulations, and no prior jurisdictional objection was shown. The attempt to reclassify the land as industrial also failed: in the absence of payment of required external development charges and valid land-use conversion approval, the land remained agricultural for valuation purposes, and the valuers&#039; approach and sale notice on an as-is-where-is basis were upheld. The imposition of costs was also sustained where repeated objections appeared to delay the liquidation process without substantive basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:19:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 397 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397454</link>
      <description>Valuation and sale terms in liquidation must be assessed against the governing statutory and regulatory framework. A challenge to the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s jurisdiction failed because it had examined only compliance with liquidation regulations, and no prior jurisdictional objection was shown. The attempt to reclassify the land as industrial also failed: in the absence of payment of required external development charges and valid land-use conversion approval, the land remained agricultural for valuation purposes, and the valuers&#039; approach and sale notice on an as-is-where-is basis were upheld. The imposition of costs was also sustained where repeated objections appeared to delay the liquidation process without substantive basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>